EPA increases ethanol level in nation’s gas supply despite critics

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is boosting the amount of corn-based ethanol and other renewable fuels in the U.S. gasoline supply despite sustained opposition by an unusual alliance of oil companies, environmentalists and some Republican presidential candidates.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a final rule designed to increase production of ethanol to be blended with gasoline through 2016. The agency said it will require more than 18 billion gallons of renewable fuels, most of it ethanol. The amount is less than was set in a 2007 renewable fuels law, but more than was proposed by the EPA in May.

The decision doesn’t necessarily mean a higher percentage of ethanol in an individual driver’s tank – now at 10 percent in most instances – and isn’t likely to have much effect on gas prices. But it does mean there will be a higher supply of the homegrown fuel overall.

Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, said the renewable fuels industry is “an incredible American success story” and the 2016 targets are a signal it is growing.

“It’s all about more choice and making those fuels more available” to consumers, she said.

More renewable fuels are good news for farm country. But ethanol critics say the levels are too high.

Maine Sens. Angus King and Susan Collins oppose raising the percentage of ethanol in gasoline.

Oil companies have spent many years fighting the 2007 law, saying the market, not the government, should determine how much ethanol is blended into their gas. Environmental groups say farmers growing large amounts of corn for ethanol are tearing up the land. And conservatives like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, call the government’s longtime support for ethanol “corporate welfare.”

The renewable fuels law sought to address global warming, reduce dependence on foreign oil and bolster the rural economy by requiring a steady increase in the overall amount of ethanol and other renewable fuels blended into gasoline over time. The Renewable Fuel Standard, as it is called, sets out specific yearly targets.

Since then, the EPA has said the standards set by the law cannot be fully reached due partly to limits on the amount of renewable fuels other than ethanol that can be produced. Next-generation biofuels, made from agricultural waste such as wood chips and corncobs, have not taken off as quickly as Congress required and the administration expected.

Still, the new rule setting targets for 2015, 2016 and retroactively for 2014 would represent an overall increase in the use of renewable fuels.

The new standards come as President Obama and other world leaders are meeting in Paris to finalize an agreement to cut carbon emissions worldwide, and the administration says this will help achieve that goal. Some studies have called into question whether that is the case, however.

The new targets are a victory for the ethanol industry, which aggressively pushed back on a 2013 proposal that would have decreased the amount of ethanol mixed into fuel.

After the announcement, some ethanol companies and farm groups said they were pleased the EPA had increased the numbers from previous proposals. But they still expressed frustration that the standards were less than in the law, something the agency has the power to do if it thinks the goals cannot be met.

Failing to meet the standards is “to the detriment of economic prosperity in rural America,” said National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson.

Farm-state lawmakers – and some presidential candidates wanting to win over voters in farm states like Iowa – have successfully pushed back on calls from opponents to lower ethanol levels or repeal the standards. So far, critics have had little luck getting past those supporters to change the policy in Congress.

In the presidential race, Democrat Hillary Clinton has called for robust renewable fuels standards, and her fellow Democrats have also been supportive.

The issue has divided Republicans.

While some Republican presidential candidates like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee have spoken about maintaining higher levels of renewable fuels, others like Cruz have denounced the policy. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has positioned himself somewhere in the middle, saying the standard should not be repealed after many have made investments, but it should be eventually phased out.

Iowa, host of the leadoff presidential caucuses next year, produces more ethanol than any other state. But as national security and the economy have eclipsed farming issues in many rural areas, some candidates, like Cruz, have felt comfortable criticizing it and have still fared well in the polls.

Here at MaineToday Media we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion.

To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use. Click here to flag and report a comment that violates our terms of use.

7T5IV

More expensive to produce and purchase, less efficient in engines, destructive to small engines…..sounds like an Obama project!

duxndrakes

Exactly.

Mefrfiter

Drives the price of corn up again as a food and for cattle. Beef prices up some more.

notspot

Why read the story?

“The agency said it will require more than 18 billion gallons of renewable fuels, most of it ethanol, in 2016. The amount is less than was set in a 2007 renewable fuels law, but more than was proposed by the EPA in May.”

That bad ol President Obama started this back in at 2007!

7T5IV

Bad ol Obama has been in charge for 7 years and you’re still blaming Bush, that is sad.

Erocker

I still blame Bush. I also blame Obama. The government is in sad shape.

duxndrakes

Obama isn’t bad…………he is simply an incompetent ,dolt.

Braindead Republican

Despite the frequency, it is still astounding to see mentally challenged droolers refer to a highly intelligent man as a dolt.

duxndrakes

Its astounding to me to see ” mentally challenged droolers ” comment here so much defending a dolt. I have to say, you are good at it.

maineincrisis

dolt is generous for the community organizer and chief.

MaineMod

What a horrible decision. Turning food into fuel has caused food costs to go up. Ethanol ruins engines. Producing ethanol wastes so much energy and causes so much impact on the environment that any perceived benefits are wiped out. This could be enough to shift me back to the right.

dharper7

WHY???!!! Ethanol is inefficient. The mandate is/was a terrible idea

Erocker

No environmental group is for corn ethanol. Only people making money off corn ethanol are for this huge mistake.

maineincrisis

Call your senators and congress men and women and tell them no!!!

MaineMod

Unfortunately, it was not up to Congress. No one in Congress “voted” on this. It was up to bureaucrats in the EPA, mostly appointees of Obama. And if the EPA hadn’t upped the ethanol portion, Obama would have done it by executive order. This is utter nonsense and hurts just about everyone except some corn growers.